4 September 2014
During a routine inspection
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, and the records we looked at. We used the evidence we collected during our inspection to answer five questions.
Is the service safe?
Risk assessments were in place for things such as individual health conditions, activity planning and handling money and financial affairs. Control measures had been put in place. This meant that people's needs were met and people were kept safe. People and their relatives confirmed they felt the service was safe. One person said, 'Yes I feel safe, they support me.' When we asked a relative if they the service was safe they said, 'Very much so.'
Staff had an awareness of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). They told us they had received training on the Mental Capacity Act as part of other training they attended such as safeguarding. We saw documented procedures were in place for people's ability to consent and make decisions. This meant that systems were in place to safeguard people as required.
People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Financial policies and procedures were in place to reduce the risk of financial abuse. Staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and knew what to do in the event of suspected abuse.
Staff had received appropriate professional development and were able to obtain further relevant qualifications. Staff carried identification badges so people could ensure people supporting them were employed by the provider. This meant people's safety was maintained.
Is the service effective?
People experienced care and support that met their needs. People told us how they were supported. The managers told us they worked with other agencies to ensure people's health and social care needs were met. One staff member said, 'We support people to health appointments.' Relatives confirmed that staff would let them know if there were any issues. One relative said, 'They would ask X if it was ok for them to talk to me.' This meant that people received care in the way they wanted.
Regular audits and checks took place. Issues identified were acted on. This meant the service had effective systems in place to identify improvements and continually meet people's needs.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by friendly and considerate staff. Staff we spoke with told us how they supported people. People and relatives confirmed staff were caring, respectful and polite. One person said, 'It is very good, I like it, I like the staff.' Another person said, 'It is good they help you. I feel safe. I like it.'
People's preferences, likes, dislikes and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. People were involved in their day to day care and were supported to maintain their independence. One person said, 'I like things to be private, they always involve me.' A relative said, 'I am very pleased with the service, I looked at a few of care agencies and I made the right choice choosing Mencap.' We found that people's diversity and individuality were promoted and respected.
Is the service responsive?
People were treated with respect and dignity. This was confirmed by people we spoke with. Care plans had been developed that took into account people's changing needs and wishes. They identified people's needs and were reviewed regularly or when there was a change in need. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs. People were given choices and supported to make decisions themselves. A relative said, 'We have no concerns, it is a good service.'
One person told us they could telephone 'on call' and staff would help them. Relatives told us that staff came on time. People and their relatives confirmed that they were given choices and encouraged to express their views.
People told us they would speak to the office if they were unhappy about anything. We saw a copy of the complaints procedure was available in easy read format. People were issued a 'supporting you' document that outlined the person's rights and how the service would support them. Details of the complaints procedure was contained in the 'supporting you' document. People and relatives told us they had no complaints.
Is the service well-led?
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. This was confirmed by records were saw. Relatives were positive about the service identifying stability of managers and keyworkers as being a big improvement. One relative said, 'Consistency of staff is very important to X.' Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities and had opportunities to raise any issues or concerns. Staff told us they enjoyed their jobs and working for the provider. Two members of staff told us they were proud of who they worked for.
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns. People had access to a copy of the complaints procedure. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
The service had a quality assurance system in place. Audits and checks were undertaken regularly. A service manager showed us a new software system they were starting to use. The software system would allow for improved monitoring, analysis and reporting. This meant the quality of the service was able to continually improve.